Katherine Katz, P.C.

MDL/Product Liability

• In re Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2913 (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.) and Attorney General matters. Defended JUUL Labs, Inc. in multidistrict litigation and in Attorney General investigation and litigation matters involving alleged fraudulent marketing and products liability claims related to JUUL e-cigarette and e-vapor products. Drove discovery coordination across matters, led JLI’s pre-trial work and strategy, and prepared for multiple bellwether and Attorney General trials. In 2022, JLI resolved essentially all of the cases in the federal MDL and related California state JCCP cases, as well as the multistate Attorney General investigation. In 2023, represented Juul in a three-week trial against the Minnesota Attorney General, including putting on Juul’s primary expert. The case settled the morning of closing arguments and JLI resolved litigation with other litigating states around the same time.
• In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Liability Litigation, MDL 3037 (N.D. Ill.; 7th Cir.). Represented Abbott in a multidistrict litigation involving alleged fraudulent marketing and product liability claims related to formula manufactured at Abbott’s Sturgis, Michigan plant. Claims were brought by personal injury and economic loss plaintiffs. Kirkland achieved dismissal of the consumer class actions in May 2023 and settled the personal injury cases in 2024. Currently representing Abbott in numerous individual personal injury lawsuits involving product liability and marketing claims related to Abbott formula in both federal and state courts.

Antitrust Litigation

• In CDK Antitrust Litigation. Defense counsel in two antitrust class action lawsuits alleging conspiracy among automotive data and technology service providers resulting in inflated prices. Resulted in favorable settlements.
• In re Interior Molded Doors Litigation. Defended client in nationwide class action alleging price fixing in the sale of interior molded doors. Settled case before trial.
• Represented pharmaceutical companies in patent settlement antitrust litigation, including in In re ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigation (achieved dismissal of indirect and direct purchaser lawsuits); Modafinil Antitrust Litigation. (won partial summary judgment and favorable settlements reached in the remaining actions); In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation (represented Teva in the first antitrust case arising out of a patent litigation settlement to go to trial after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis and settled the case favorably after nearly six weeks of trial); In re Cipro Cases I & II (settlement reached before trial).

Securities Litigation

• Boeing Securities Litigation. Represents Boeing in federal and state securities litigation, including class action litigation, stemming from statements made in the wake of the 2018 and 2019 737 MAX accidents.

Labor and Employment Litigation

• FTI, LLC et al. v. Holder et al. Lead counsel for Plaintiffs in case involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims against three former employees and their new employer. Reached a favorable settlement on the eve of trial.
• DSM v. Honeywell International Inc. Won summary judgment for Honeywell in lawsuit alleging that Honeywell misappropriated trade secrets when it hired an employee who previously worked at a competitor. This case was featured in the Reuters article, “Honeywell Knocks Combat Helmet Trade Secrets Case on its Head” in July 2018.

False Claims Act Litigation

• United States v. Honeywell. Represented Honeywell in a case of first impression that established a pro tanto dollar-for-dollar setoff of common damages among defendants in multi-defendant cases brought under the False Claims Act, which completely eliminated Honeywell’s exposure for statutory damages under the FCA . This case was featured in the March 2022 Bloomberg article, “Honeywell Says Body Armor Case Should End Because U.S. Got Paid” and the August 2022 Law.com article, “Honeywell Can't Be Forced to Pay $35M in False Claims Case.”